Pesachim 14a — the Talmud in English

There were two cows plowing on Mount Ha-Mishḥa [

Mount of Olives].

As long as both of them were plowing,

they

all the people were eating

ḥametz.

If one of them was removed,

they

would suspend judgment: they would neither eat nor burn.

If both of them were removed, all the people began burning.

Mishna:

Rabbi Ḥanina, deputy of the priests, says:

Even though it is prohibited to render pure sacred things impure, it is permitted to render sacred things that became impure with a lesser impurity impure with a more severe impurity, since in any event they are destined to be burned. Therefore,

throughout the lives of the priests,

they

did not refrain from burning the flesh

of sacred offerings

that became impure through

contact with

a derivative of impurity [“a derivative of impurity” is something that touched a primary source of impurity and became a first-degree impure object. And flesh that became impure because of contact with a derivative of impurity becomes second-degree impure], together

with

the flesh that became impure

through contact

with a primary source of impurity,

and became first-degree impure.

And

even though

the two touch one another during their burning, and the priests are found

adding

thereby

impurity to its impurity,

of the flesh that became impure through a derivative of impurity. [And the Gemara will explain what addition of impurity there is here].

And they are not concerned about this, since it is destined to be burned.

And it is taught here because of the latter clause, which deals with the removal of leavened teruma.

Rabbi Akiva added and said: Throughout the lives of the priests, they did not refrain from lighting the oil

of teruma

that was disqualified through

contact with

one who immersed that day, in a lamp

a receptacle for oil and a wick

that became impure through

contact with

one impure through contact with a corpse.

And

even though they add

thereby

impurity to its impurity

of the oil.

One who immersed for his impurity is immediately pure with regard to ordinary food. But he still disqualifies teruma and sacred offerings until “the setting of the sun” [that is, until the end of the day]. And his status is that of a second-degree impure object: he disqualifies teruma and makes it third-degree impure.

This law is learned from a woman after childbirth, concerning whom it is stated: “And she shall not touch any sacred thing.” And the woman after childbirth is considered one who immersed after a long period until the end of her days of purification, since until then she is not fit to bring her atonement offering. Accordingly, the lamp, which became impure through a person impure through contact with a corpse, becomes first-degree impure, because the corpse itself is a primary source of primary impurity. And the person who touches it becomes a primary source of impurity, and makes the vessel that touches him first-degree impure.

It follows that the lamp, which is first-degree impure, makes the liquid that touches it second-degree impure. Therefore, oil of teruma, which was third-degree impure because it was disqualified through contact with one who immersed that day, when it is placed inside a vessel that became impure through contact with one impure through contact with a corpse [which is first-degree impure], now becomes second-degree impure. And although it is prohibited to render pure teruma impure, as it is written, “the charge of My terumot,” here there is no concern, since in any event the impure oil is destined to be burned.

So explained Rashi. However, according to the conclusion of the Gemara, he establishes it even in a case where the oil becomes first-degree impure.

Rabbi Meir said: From their words

of Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Akiva

we have learned that they burn teruma

of ḥametz

that is pure together with

the

impure teruma on Passover,

even though the pure one becomes impure through this.

And although it is prohibited to render pure teruma impure, here they were not concerned, since in any event it is going to be lost during the removal of the ḥametz.

Rabbi Yose said: This is not the proper inference!

You cannot learn this from the words of Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Akiva. And the Gemara will explain his reason.

Since Rabbi Yose said: Although we find that Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagreed concerning this matter,

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua agree

with regard to impure and pure teruma

that they burn

on the eve of Passover

this by itself and

that

by itself,

so that the impure one should not touch the pure one and render it impure.

Over what did they disagree,

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua?

Over

the teruma

that is in abeyance [of uncertain impurity]

[whose impurity is uncertain]

and

over the teruma

that is impure.

For Rabbi Eliezer says: Let this be burned by itself and that by itself,

because we are concerned that perhaps the teruma in abeyance is pure, and it is prohibited to render it impure.

And Rabbi Yehoshua says:

Let them be burned

both together.

Since it is in abeyance and unfit for eating, you are not warned concerning safeguarding it.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Throughout the lives of the priests they did not refrain from burning the flesh that became impure through a derivative of impurity together with the flesh that became impure through a primary source of impurity, even though they add impurity to its impurity.

And we raised an objection concerning it: What addition of impurity is there here?

Granted,

it is

flesh that became impure through a derivative of impurity—

what is it?

Is it not

second-degree

impure? For the derivative itself is first-degree, and the flesh that touched it became second-degree.

Whereas the other flesh, which became impure through a primary source of impurity, is only first-degree impure.

And if so,

when he burns it

the flesh that is second-degree impure

together,

together with the

flesh

other

that became impure through a primary source of impurity,

and it is first-degree impure—

what will it be,

what addition of impurity will there be in it?

Is it not that even now, when it becomes impure through contact with flesh that is first-degree impure, this flesh will be only

second-degree

impure? For now it is touching flesh that is first-degree impure.

Second, and it is second! And

if so,

what

“adds impurity to its impurity”

is there?

Rav Yehuda said: Here

we are dealing with flesh that became impure through contact

with the derivative

of a derivative [which is second-degree impure]

we are dealing.

It becomes

this flesh

third-degree

impure, since it became impure through contact with flesh that is second-degree impure.

And now, when it comes to burn it together with the other flesh, which is first-degree impure, it becomes second-degree impure through contact with it.

And he holds

that Rabbi Ḥanina says that a third-degree impure object

is permitted to be made second-degree,

because while it is still third-degree impure it is destined to be burned.

But it can still be asked: How can an addition of impurity be made in it?

But does food not render food impure?

And if so, even when the flesh that is first-degree impure touches flesh that is third-degree impure, it does not render it impure and does not make it second-degree impure!?

As it was taught: Could it be that food renders food impure?—

The verse states: “And if water is placed upon seed, and any of their carcasses falls upon it, it is impure.”

To teach you: only

it

[the food touched by a creeping animal] becomes

impure. And it does not

that food

make

another food that is

like it

that is, also food

impure! Rather, food renders only liquid impure, and liquid renders food impure. But food does not render food impure.

This works for Abaye, who says: They taught

that food does not render food impure

only with ordinary food, but with teruma and sacred offerings

impure food

does make

even

one like it [another food] impure! According to him, there is properly an addition of impurity here. For

[other food] impure! According to him, there is indeed an additional impurity here. For

the flesh

that is first-degree impure makes the flesh that is third-degree impure second-degree impure.

And

even

according to Rav Adda bar Ahava in the name of Rava, also

it is properly resolved.

For

Rav Adda bar Ahava in the name of Rava

said:

They taught

only with ordinary food and teruma. But with sacred offerings,

impure food

makes

another food

like it,

impure.

Thus, even according to him, there is properly an addition of impurity here, since we are dealing here with the flesh of sacred offerings.

But according to Ravina in the name of Rava, who says: An explicit verse

speaks

of the matter

stated

whether ordinary food, whether teruma, whether sacred offerings,

impure food

does not make

another food

like it

impure—

what can be said?

According to him, even with sacred offerings the flesh does not render the flesh impure; so what addition of impurity is there here?!

And we answer:

Here, with what are we dealing? With liquids present together with

with

flesh!

That is, when the first-degree flesh touched a primary source of impurity, liquids were upon it.

And they too became impure with it and also became first-degree impure, and the liquids still remain.

And now, when he burns together with them flesh that is third-degree impure,

it becomes impure

the third-degree flesh

because of the liquids

that are upon the flesh, which are first-degree impure, and through this the flesh that touches them becomes second-degree impure.

And we reject this:

If so,

if the impurity is because of the liquids upon the flesh and not because of the flesh—what is

this

that it teaches: “They did not refrain from burning the flesh that became impure through a derivative of impurity

with the flesh that became impure through a primary source of impurity”?

But it should have stated:

“with the flesh and the liquids

upon it,”

it should have had to teach

this.

And we answer with another answer:

Rather, although food

does not render food impure by Torah law, by rabbinic law, in any event,

food

does render

food impure.

And Rabbi Ḥanina teaches us that even though they add to it, by rabbinic law, impurity to its impurity, we are not concerned about this, since in any event it is going to be lost.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Akiva added: Throughout the lives of the priests, they did not refrain from lighting

oil disqualified through one who immersed that day in a lamp that became impure through a primary source of impurity.

And we raised an objection concerning it:

Granted,

it is

oil disqualified through one who immersed that day—what is it?

Is it not

third-degree

impure?

Since one who immersed that day himself has the status of second-degree impurity, and through his contact he makes the oil third-degree. Whereas the lamp that became impure through one impure through contact with a corpse becomes first-degree impure, since it touched a primary source of impurity.

And if so,

when he lights the oil

that is third-degree impure

in a lamp that became impure through one impure through contact with a corpse,

and it is first-degree impure—

what will it be?

The third-degree oil becomes

second-degree.

And the question arises:

what does this teach us

Rabbi Akiva?

If you wish to say that he teaches us that

a third-degree object is permitted to be made second-degree,

Rabbi Ḥanina already taught us this, as explained above. And

it is the same thing

that Rabbi Ḥanina taught us.

Rav Yehuda said:

Here

we are dealing with a metal lamp.

And when one impure through contact with a corpse touched the lamp, the lamp became a primary source of impurity, and not first-degree impure.